| People v Ramsundar |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02858 [138 AD3d 892] |
| April 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shantel Ramsundar, Appellant. |
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Robert J. Masters, John M.Castellano, and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Holder, J.), rendered January 11, 2012, convicting her of grand larceny in the seconddegree (two counts), grand larceny in the third degree (two counts), money laundering inthe second degree (two counts), money laundering in the third degree (two counts),criminal impersonation in the first degree (six counts), and scheme to defraud in the firstdegree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing her to consecutive andconcurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment, which, by operation of Penal Law§ 70.30 (1) (e) (i), were reduced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10to 20 years, as well as a fine in the sum of $182,180.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by providing that the sentences imposed with respect to the 17th and 23rd countsof the indictment shall run concurrently with all the remaining sentences rather thanconsecutively, thus reducing the defendant's aggregate term of imprisonment to 6 to 18years, and reducing the fine to $5,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court denied her the constitutional right topresent a defense (see generally Chambers v Mississippi, 410 US 284 [1973];Washington v Texas, 388 US 14 [1967]) by precluding her from elicitingtestimony that would demonstrate the complainants' bias or motive to fabricate.However, the defendant's constitutional claims are unpreserved for appellate review,since she did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence at trial(see People v Simmons, 106AD3d 1115, 1116 [2013]). In any event, the court's rulings were a providentexercise of discretion, as the defendant failed to offer a good faith basis for the proposedline of inquiry (see People vHicks, 88 AD3d 817 [2011]; People v Garcia, 47 AD3d 830 [2008]; People v Mestres, 41 AD3d618 [2007]; People vWalsh, 35 AD3d 637 [2006]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent reviewpursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
[*2] Under the particular circumstances of this case, wefind that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). The defendant was charged and tried together with her parents for crimes arisingfrom their concerted efforts in a years-long fraudulent scheme to steal or swindleapproximately $1,800,000 from 19 complainants (see People v Ramsundar, 138AD3d 891 [2016] [decided herewith]; People v Ramsundar, 138 AD3d 890 [2016][decided herewith]). The evidence at trial demonstrated that the defendant's father wasthe primary driving force behind the criminal scheme. Upon her 16 convictions, thedefendant was sentenced to consecutive and concurrent indeterminate prison terms,resulting in an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 to 30 years, which, by operation ofPenal Law § 70.30 (1) (e) (i), were reduced to an aggregate term ofimprisonment of 10 to 20 years, as well as a fine in the sum of $182,180. Hercodefendant parents, both of whom were convicted of over 30 crimes, received muchhigher aggregate sentences than the defendant. Her father was sentenced to an aggregateterm of imprisonment of 78 years and four months to 235 years, and her mother wassentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 51 to 153 years. However, like thedefendant's sentence, the sentences of her codefendant parents were reduced by operationof Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (e) (i) to aggregate terms of imprisonment of 10 to20 years. We find that reducing the defendant's sentence is appropriate, among otherreasons, in light of the disparity between her original sentence and that of hercodefendant parents, her relatively young age, her lower level of participation in thecriminal scheme, and her lack of a prior criminal record (compare People v Crew, 114AD3d 696, 697 [2014]). Accordingly, we modify the sentence to the extentindicated herein, to reduce the defendant's sentence to an aggregate term of imprisonmentof 6 to 18 years and her fine to $5,000. Mastro, J.P., Hall, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ.,concur.